Do any APs or groups of APs own/manage a casino?
- Thread starter 21forme
- Start date
Dyepaintball12
Well-Known Member
One of my goals in life is to own a casino. I mean yeah everyone talks about how evil they are but people enjoy gambling and if you could create an atmosphere that people really loved with fair games I think that would be great.
I looked into buying a small casino several years ago but was unable to come up with the needed financing. It's really not owning the casino that is important, it's being in charge of the day to day operations.
Keep in mind, anyone that owns stock in MGM "owns" the casino.
Keep in mind, anyone that owns stock in MGM "owns" the casino.
Dyepaintball12
Well-Known Member
True but even as the President of Operations (like James Caan in La Vegas) you still have to answer to the owner(s) so you're still somewhat limited.
I don't know if anyone has read the book "Double or Nothing" by Tom Breitling, but it was about him and another guy who bought the Golden Nugget in Vegas with some other financers (including Andre Agassi). They were the majority owners and in charge of Day to Day Operations.
That's the way to go! (if you can get hundreds of millions of dollars!)
I don't know if anyone has read the book "Double or Nothing" by Tom Breitling, but it was about him and another guy who bought the Golden Nugget in Vegas with some other financers (including Andre Agassi). They were the majority owners and in charge of Day to Day Operations.
That's the way to go! (if you can get hundreds of millions of dollars!)
Id run it like Bob Stupak ran Vegas World.
IN 1990 when I was a new counter ($2-5 units), I spoke to Angelo, his casino manager, and asked him since every card but the burn card was played in their single decks, weren't they worried about card counters?
He said they were welcome, but were limited to a 5-1 spread.
Remember this is the only place that would allow Ken Uston to play for the "60 Minutes" interview.
To those who remember, the single decks played all 52 cards and were shuffled in the middle of the hand when the cards ran out. Blackjacks paid even money but all were insured. It was a perfect game to play using "action chips" as they could only be used on even money bets.
But his shoes did pay 3-2 and 5 to 5 1/2 of 6 decks were played which is where I played with real cash.
And the casino was alway packed with people--old people--who bought his packages and went to the tables and split fives, hit hard 16's against 5 up cards and stayed on 12 against 10's. He made his money against these inexperienced and ignorant players.
Stupak was a card counter and gambler, and con man, but if you knew how to take advantage of his offers, his screwy black mirrored casino could be beaten.
IN 1990 when I was a new counter ($2-5 units), I spoke to Angelo, his casino manager, and asked him since every card but the burn card was played in their single decks, weren't they worried about card counters?
He said they were welcome, but were limited to a 5-1 spread.
Remember this is the only place that would allow Ken Uston to play for the "60 Minutes" interview.
To those who remember, the single decks played all 52 cards and were shuffled in the middle of the hand when the cards ran out. Blackjacks paid even money but all were insured. It was a perfect game to play using "action chips" as they could only be used on even money bets.
But his shoes did pay 3-2 and 5 to 5 1/2 of 6 decks were played which is where I played with real cash.
And the casino was alway packed with people--old people--who bought his packages and went to the tables and split fives, hit hard 16's against 5 up cards and stayed on 12 against 10's. He made his money against these inexperienced and ignorant players.
Stupak was a card counter and gambler, and con man, but if you knew how to take advantage of his offers, his screwy black mirrored casino could be beaten.
aslan
Well-Known Member
I was playing the LV Hilton a couple of years ago. I went to double down after splitting and the dealers said, "You can't do that here." I complained because it wasn't clearly advertised. The PC came over and told me flat out, they don't believe in gambling here. He was very nice about it. He said if I wanted a fairer game to try the Riviera across the street.Sucker said:
flyingwind
Well-Known Member
I hate not knowing whether I could or could not double down after split. But at the same time, I worry that asking about it before I play would raise more eyebrows, or at least, get attention from them that I know how to play.
Nynefingers
Well-Known Member
I don't think it seems strange if you ask just before making a play that would be different depending on this rule. For example, if you get 44 vs. 6, I don't think it is odd to ask if you can double down if you catch a good card when you split. It's not hard to act like you don't know whether or not you want to split and maybe that might help influence your decision.flyingwind said:
How I would do it
2. Offer h17 ds rsa double deck with 50% penetration
3. Offer h17 ds ls rsa shoes with 2 decks cutoff
4. Require 2x Table Min to play two spots
5. Allow Mid-Shoe Entry but allow a player to request no-mid shoe entry
6. Show all burn cards on request
7. Let everyone play unmolested. Real pigs would get 1/2 shoed and have skill rating adjusted for no comps only after a very long evaluation process.
8. Have loads of open tables at a variety of limits
9. Offer generous comps to everyone betting at least $25 except the "pigs" mentioned in #7
10. Have realistic table maxes commensurate with the amount of monthly swings the owners really want to accept. Then let players play pretty freely within that range rather than offering too high a bet limit and sweating it out every month.
11. Allow anyone to play rated or unrated or under any name they want as long as it doesn't involve breaking players club rules. It's up to the casino to identify them if they want to 1/2 shoe them.
12. ID players using aliases, 1/2 shoe them if their other names demand it, and link the accounts together without even mentioning it to the player in question.
13. 86 and Trespass people only for causing an actual disturbance.
1. Have shuffle machines at all tables (not CSM's) to maximize game speed and economy of motion.BMDD said:
2. Offer h17 ds rsa double deck with 50% penetration
3. Offer h17 ds ls rsa shoes with 2 decks cutoff
4. Require 2x Table Min to play two spots
5. Allow Mid-Shoe Entry but allow a player to request no-mid shoe entry
6. Show all burn cards on request
7. Let everyone play unmolested. Real pigs would get 1/2 shoed and have skill rating adjusted for no comps only after a very long evaluation process.
8. Have loads of open tables at a variety of limits
9. Offer generous comps to everyone betting at least $25 except the "pigs" mentioned in #7
10. Have realistic table maxes commensurate with the amount of monthly swings the owners really want to accept. Then let players play pretty freely within that range rather than offering too high a bet limit and sweating it out every month.
11. Allow anyone to play rated or unrated or under any name they want as long as it doesn't involve breaking players club rules. It's up to the casino to identify them if they want to 1/2 shoe them.
12. ID players using aliases, 1/2 shoe them if their other names demand it, and link the accounts together without even mentioning it to the player in question.
13. 86 and Trespass people only for causing an actual disturbance.
NightStalker
Well-Known Member
bad rules
Everything sounds good except 2 and 3.. I probably offer s17 and 75%pen in dd while 80% in shoe games to attract more HR customers...bigplayer said:
Pen
I believe that blackjack can be set up in a way such that skilled players can get an edge but be a pretty tough nut to crack such that everyone can play pretty much unmolested. Casino's own greed is what prevents this in Nevada and it's resulting in the destruction of blackjack as we know it along with the casinos own bottom line.
Of course personally I'd prefer shoes dealt to 10 cards and no heat, but I'm trying to be fair to the original posters question. Based on what I've seen around the country as to the casinos that make the most money...they let players play and have passive game protection (bad cuts) rather than good cuts and aggressive game protection. They don't sweat the flux and therefore get the most action. It always comes down to action x edge in determining the hold of the game. More action gets more profits. More action creates more action. More uncrowded tables yields more hands per hour. Shuffle machines allow more shoes per hour than hand shuffles and prevents shuffle tracking. It's not that difficult. The really stupid casinos are those that have both bad cuts AND sweat the sharper players. These casinos also probably hand shuffle and shut down tables as fast as they can to keep all of the open ones full and labor costs as low as it can go.
I can only imagine how much more money Foxwoods would make if they kept tables a bit more uncrowded rather than just piling everyone onto a small number of tables.
If you offer deep pen like that you'll have to be much more aggressive about game protection because every counter in the world would swoop in on you if you just let them play. If all of your competition also offered great pen you could also and the A.P.'s would be spread out. It's tied into market conditions but generally if you are the only (or one of a few) that offer exceptionally great pen and let everyone play and you'll get destroyed in fairly short order. The thing to do is to offer challenging but fair penetration and then just sit back and dare people to try and beat you and use the technology offered by shuffle master to make up the difference in hands per hour that mediocre penetration creates. The general public doesn't care whether pen is 90% or 70%, they just want fair rules. Offer decent rules and you'll be taking care of the majority of your players. If my market was particularly competitive I'd offer a slew of 3:2 payoff rule of 5 single deck h17 d10 with shuffle machines and let people fire away. Most will not have the skills or guts to beat that game (they'd have spread pretty blatantly even to get a 1% advantage.)NightStalker said:
I believe that blackjack can be set up in a way such that skilled players can get an edge but be a pretty tough nut to crack such that everyone can play pretty much unmolested. Casino's own greed is what prevents this in Nevada and it's resulting in the destruction of blackjack as we know it along with the casinos own bottom line.
Of course personally I'd prefer shoes dealt to 10 cards and no heat, but I'm trying to be fair to the original posters question. Based on what I've seen around the country as to the casinos that make the most money...they let players play and have passive game protection (bad cuts) rather than good cuts and aggressive game protection. They don't sweat the flux and therefore get the most action. It always comes down to action x edge in determining the hold of the game. More action gets more profits. More action creates more action. More uncrowded tables yields more hands per hour. Shuffle machines allow more shoes per hour than hand shuffles and prevents shuffle tracking. It's not that difficult. The really stupid casinos are those that have both bad cuts AND sweat the sharper players. These casinos also probably hand shuffle and shut down tables as fast as they can to keep all of the open ones full and labor costs as low as it can go.
I can only imagine how much more money Foxwoods would make if they kept tables a bit more uncrowded rather than just piling everyone onto a small number of tables.
kewljason
Well-Known Member
The only thing I question is the shuffle machines. How much do these things really save casinos? It is my understanding that they must be leased rather than purchased, which means an ongoing investment. To make up that investment, you would want to have them in use as much as possible, which means you shouldn't use them on tables that are only in use part of the day or only on weekends. And which party (the leasor or leasee) pays the cost of up keep, because it seems these machines are always 'down' or malfunctioning.bigplayer said:
I couldn't agree more with you about keeping tables a bit more uncrowded. I understand the 'manage to full' thinking that the conn casinos and others impliment, but it just seems that when there are numerous players standing around waiting to play, which is often the case, that someone has miscalculated.
Last edited:
Managed To Full
Managed to Full and No Mid-Shoe Entry has cost casinos more money over the last 5-10 years than just about anything else they could do. Why have 6 players at 1 table each playing 50 rounds per hour when you could have 3 players at each of two tables each playing 90 rounds per hour. Just make every table a 5 spot table and keep players spread out. If the casino gets 2x the rounds from each player they make 2x the money.kewljason said: